Damge to valid data on "The Rockford Files"

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 months ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
I voiced objections about the invalid merging of the many two part episodes of .........
The Rockford Files


See here...https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/how-to-join-a-2-part-episode-into-1

These are the initial responses
This was his reply to my objections to the merge.
Please also note Gary's, "there is no part 2"
You can see below in the screenshots that this is not fact, and was fabricated by Gary.


This was his second reply when I said that he was incorrect.

As you can see he lied about "I've done my research" part.




The contributor Good Flix Gary has been submitting the contributions in error.
I had commented that they indeed were aired back to back but were not a continuous single episode.
If you will look at IMDb TV and watch them you can clearly see that there is a defining end to the Part Ones and a separation before part II begins all over with opening credits. The part Ones have closing credits
You have approved the merges because he has "gaslighted" the staff to somehow believing his submission is fact.
It is not.
Here is the photographic proof

A "To Be Continued" signifying the end of Part I



The beginning of the credit crawl.



The Start of the "Separate" Part II.



And Its Title Name



Now I am here addressing this issue because during the initial phase of this, I was having trouble convincing you (Staff) that the contributor was incorrect, and I was bombarded with poor behavior and really bad name calling, by the contributor and two other individuals. So while I tried, I got frustrated with the whole mess and waited for staff to act accordingly. But unfortunately I believe my interjecting was a distraction to staff actually focusing on the invalidity of the submissions themselves.

Now I am about the integrity of the database and it's accuracy.

Since these have been merged the only correction (a split) I believe can only be done by posting the request here.
If there is a submission that can be performed within the databases interface, please advise.

To restate the guidelines.
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/episode-guidelines/GDF7HR6CCCBKU3CP?ref_=helpsrall#

Under Part "B"

B. Adding Episode Numbers - Things to consider

Episode parts: Some programs air two-part episodes from time to time.

 If the two parts are clearly separated (separate titles or a separate title card), then they should be entered as two separate episodes (with "Part 1/Part 2" on the end of
the title if they don't have unique titles).

(Which is how this aired then, and now still)

If they are run together as one long episode on original airing (with one set of
credits), then they should be treated as a single episode, even if
they are separated in reruns, syndication, or other later airings.

(Which is how it did not air EVER)


As can clearly be seen in IMD's Rules and the photographic evidence provided, these episodes should have never been merged.

Now a second thing to consider please. How much damage has been done to this database by this contributors lack of knowledge and/or research prior to making submissions?
He has only come here on a few occasions, so how many contributions have just been approved without any real scrutiny? He may have submitted URL's to back up his claims that may have been questionable.

I ask that an audit be performed for all submissions by Good Flix Gary, and that any future contributions by him be placed on the extra proof requirement level, due to his lackadaisical research and his flat out lying to staff, to get a submission approved .
Please place him on the non-trusted status.

I do not need an answer on anything here other than if you need me to make some form of submission on The Rockford Files to repair the damage.
Also the numbering of the episodes are no longer accurate. This can be seen in the IMDbTV/Amaazon screen grabs above.

A Note: This just does not concern this single example, but all two part episodes in the series. They are all separate just like the above example.

Thanks

P.S: I know that I can be quite annoying at times, but that is no reason to ignore my true intentions of the protection of true and valid data in this database. My overall work should be judged. Not the few dustups that come from my pursuit of true facts. I'm not perfect. But I try to do my best. Also when I'm wrong and realize it, I do not pursue the matter further. But I will not yield when I am 100% sure as I am here.
I do apologize for my excessive zeal.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes

Posted 5 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
After thinking about it, I realized that I could submit the incorrectly removed data by simply adding an episode.
I have done so on the single above example. I can continue if need be. please advise. I added no cast or crew data on this addition at this time.
If I did have to do all that, it would be rather time consuming. I feel that I should not have to do all that if it can be simply undone. All the correct data should still be in the database I hope.
If not I can reluctantly re-enter all of it back if need be.
Contribution #200420-075427-250000

Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
Your so-called proof does not reflect how it was originally aired 46 years ago. How it's being streamed today in 2020 is not relevant to how it was aired originally. So your so-called proof is incorrect and deceptive.
I'm sorry but you are incorrect.
Would suggest you drop this.
You are not going to get this reversed.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
It was aired that way 46 years ago. I can verify it. You cannot.
You are part of the same problem here as Gary.
You are not the arbiter. You are just an unchecked, undisciplined, rude individual.

You are in the same category here.
You also need to be on IMDb's non trusted contributor status.
I left you out of this posting out of respect. I only referred to you as "Two Other Contributors" here, but since you interjected and decided that you would comment, I  now request that IMDb staff watch you closely too.
So there you go. If you cannot restrain yourself from commenting further, I can contact IMDb outside this forum "Again" about your behavior.
Please refrain from commenting any further.
Thanks
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
Your verification on your mind is not important, what's important is if you can prove it or not.
You did not provide proof in this topic, you tried to deceive people by showing how it's being streamed in 2020.
Sorry, nothing in your post proves anything.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
I'm sorry for your lack of knowledge, but they do not add things for streaming 43 years after the fact. That statement is absolutely silly and as no relevance here. The proof IS the actual video present. It was made that way 43 years ago. What your saying is that the video has been added to. You gotta be kidding me.

This is the same problem that Gary has.
You are limited in your knowledge base. You talk a good talk, but you cannot argue that that portion of that footage did not exist when aired.  At the time of production there was no VCR, Laser Disks, DVD's, Blu Ray. No there were only reruns. For you to make the absurd claim that the content that is seen now today was somehow never seen then is absolutely absurd.

You sir have no business altering valid data here.

If you say anything further, I shall not reply. Because anything you do say is irrelevant and is proof of nothing.
(Edited)
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
Sorry, your mind is not a valid source. You still didn't prove anything.
Photo of Joel

Joel, Official Rep

  • 1241 Posts
  • 1761 Reply Likes
Hi Ed,

Thanks for getting in touch about this.

Before we can split these two out, we really need to know how this was aired back when it was first released - I can find the following information:

https://themindreels.com/2014/02/18/the-rockford-files-1974-this-case-is-closed-part-1-2/

This states:

"Private eye Jim Rockford (James Garner) finds himself in trouble in this two-parter with a teleplay by Cannell based on a story by Roy Huggins. Originally aired as a two-hour presentation on October 18, 1974, the episode was subsequently broken up into two parts for subsequent broadcasts."

Before we can split these out, you'd need to provide some further information to confirm these episodes were listed separately at the time of release.

Cheers,

Joel 
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
Joel, I provided concrete evidence via mail support proving it originally aired as one part 46 years ago.
Please check it so you won't need to waste staff time anymore for this poor attempt at manipulating staff caused by personal revenge desire of a user.
I didn't want to post it publicly in front of trolls. Please keep it private.

As demonstrated by this thread, he's trying to manipulate and waste precious staff time for his personal matters, so

I ask that an audit be performed for all submissions by Ed Jones, and that any future contributions by him be placed on the extra proof requirement level, due to his lackadaisical research and his flat out lying to staff, to get a submission approved .
Please place him on the non-trusted status.

Thanks.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
You provided nothing concrete.
Joel's research confirms what I said all along.
And parroting what I have already written is unimaginative.
Contributing to this database is a serious matter.
Unlike you I never delete or correct existing data to this extent.
NEVER. EVER.
I am an adder of data.
Not a deleter of data such as yourself.
You can extrapolate theories on this all you want.
The fact remains is that you are flat wrong.
Stop deleting data and ACTUALLY make contributions.
Add to the database.
And avoid being what you are any further.
RUDE!
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
I did, concrete evidence is on the hands of people who actually matter (staff) now.
Not deceptive, not phony like yours, real evidence proving you are wrong.
You talk like I'm the one who made these changes, I'm just someone who's not convinced by your arguments and deceptive and phony so-called proofs and researched further and found the truth and provided that to people who actually matter a.k.a. staff of IMDB. That's it.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
When will you just go away.
Not Concrete.
I watched these when they were new.
I know what I saw.
You know nothing
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
Sorry, your mind, your memories, your words are not valid source of evidence. That's not how things work.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Look I have said this before.
You're wrong.
Go Away.
I WILL find the proof needed.
Leave this topic.
You are providing no additional data.
You are here to troll.
You are not anything.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Now quit replying or I shall report you for spamming.
You are contributing NO NEW diatribe nor data.
You Are SPAMMING and TROLLING.
DO NOT COMMENT FURTHER.
(Edited)
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
I just don't want you to waste any more time only to find out you were wrong all along.
Concrete evidence already been found and provided to people who actually matter.
You can use your time for something that won't disappoint you in the end.
Cheers.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
I have ready found one source for corroboration.
You will not see it posted here.
This will all be done by direct contact.
You have already proven to be an unreliable source and a site agitator.
I am gleaning TV listings from a Newspaper Archive as we speak.
You are wrong
PERIOD
QUIT SPAMMING
QUIT TROLLING
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
Sorry you couldn't manage to deceive staff with your phony "streaming" evidence here and I don't think you will have success deceiving them with your other "phony" proofs by direct contact.
Truth hurts.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
YOU ARE TROLLING
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes

A close up

Closer Still
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
This info comes from 10 sources that must match or the listing is omitted.
One of those sources is TV Guide.
http://www.tvtango.com

Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes


Another poor attempt at deception with a phony so-called proof from an user-contributed website in 2020.

That site itself says they are gathering data from other places like IMDB, Wikipedia, streaming services etc..

Considering it gives links to streaming services for episodes, I assume they used combination of old incorrect IMDB data and streaming services data for that listing. Which makes it an invalid source for verification of this. You are basically trying to verify it with the previous, already changed data of the IMDB.

Your obstinacy and incompetence on this is hilarious. And actually concerning. I wonder how much damage you have caused to this database with this lack of research skills you have. It's just sad.
(Edited)
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
"This info comes from 10 sources that must match or the listing is omitted."
Another false statement aimed at deception. Prove that's the case other than with your own words.
Site states they use several sources for listings including IMDB, they do not state "info comes from 10 sources that must match or the listing is omitted" anywhere at all.
You are just making this out of your mind to support your claim slyly by hoping nobody will notice your deceptive false statements.
Considering that site uses IMDB as one of the sources and IMDB had wrong info until recently makes it an unreliable and invalid source.
Sorry this one failed, do better, try harder.
Spoiler alert: You lose this in the end no matter what you do. Fact are not something you can twist by your liking.
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
"This info comes from 10 sources that must match or the listing is omitted."
Another false statement aimed at deception. Prove that's the case other than with your own words.
Site states they use several sources for listings including IMDB, they do not state "info comes from 10 sources that must match or the listing is omitted" anywhere at all.
You are just making this out of your mind to support your claim slyly by hoping nobody will notice your deceptive false statements.
Considering that site uses IMDB as one of the sources and IMDB had wrong info until recently makes it an unreliable and invalid source.
Sorry this one failed, do better, try harder.
Spoiler alert: You lose this in the end no matter what you do. Fact are not something you can twist by your liking.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
I DID NOT HIDE IT
READ IT
THERE IS A LINK ABOVE
YOU ARE A TROLL
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
You happen to see any ABC Listings?
That's because they did not match.
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1841 Posts
  • 2414 Reply Likes
I would go to the library and/or the archives to see how this episode was originally aired. Meaning the TV listings. I believe e.g. the ”TV Guide” magazine probably could provide good info, and there are also several other magazines/newspapers. To me at least, this is pretty basic research with older programs. Sometimes you just need to dig deeper.


”Originally aired as a two-hour presentation on October 18, 1974.” (I believe on NBC)
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Joel,
I will try to find what you need, but this merging involved multiple two parters that were submitted.
Not just this one example.
The damage at this time is rather large.
Please wait as this may take several months to accomplish.

Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Joel.
The ONLY proof that should have been acceptable to IMDb for these to have been merged in the first place, was an actual link to the as aired original broadcast. It would settle the issue.
But since no reference to this has been presented here and the individual who presented whatever evidence there was has not shared said evidence, all these exchanges are is words.

These Two Part episodes predate the internet by a substantial number of years. No possible link that may not have been altered would be proof. No copies exist. No proof exists.
And meka. Provide PROOF. Saying my proof is not proof because you have knowledge to some "invisible" proof is no proof at all.
Put up, or shut up!
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
Don't worry, it has been provided to people who actually matter.
Not phony and deceptive like your poor attempts, not from 2020 like your poor attempts.
Concrete evidence that will close the case when they see it.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Provide proof
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
This IS never going away until it is reversed.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Stop Trolling
Photo of meka

meka

  • 159 Posts
  • 213 Reply Likes
Spam all you want, it's not up to you.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
You are not even a part of this.
Please stop
Photo of Joel

Joel, Official Rep

  • 1241 Posts
  • 1761 Reply Likes
Meka & Ed,

If you're both unable to remain civil in this community, I'll have no other recourse than to suspend both of your accounts. 

This forum is here for people to communicate, share ideas and provide feedback to all things IMDb in a positive and friendly manor - if you're willing to do that, your participation and comments are very welcome. 

At the end of it we all want the same thing, when people are passionate there will always be disagreements - however...in instances like this, please refrain from spamming or trolling one another (or any other user) and give one another the same level of respect you'd expect to be dealt. 

I shouldn't have to say any of this and I won't be posting another like it again - if I feel this behavior is continuing, I will simply take the appropriate action. 

Joel